BitFuzzy wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The difference between what's being detected as phishing attempts is
> that they are crafted to make you believe you are at
> http://www.your-bank.com, ebay.com, paypal.com, etc. They are in most
> cases very convincing, thus not only the foolish can fall prey. (I
> know very savvy people who fell for these)
>
> The other forms, mentioned.do pose the exact same threat, however
> there is a big difference the victim here was just being gullible.
In my opinion, the difference between
1) a virus
2) a phish, a Nigerian scam, a spyware, an adware, etc.
is that viruses SPREAD - that is, they propagate themselves to others through
the infected party.
As such, there are policy decisions against viruses that are appropriate in
scenarios where such policies would be inappropriate against mere phishes.
Therefore - in my opinion - ClamAV should limit itself to detecting (and
rejecting) threats of the first kind by default. If an option is added to
detect and reject threats of the second kind, that can only be a good thing -
so long as it is an option.
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
perl -e"map{y/a-z/l-za-k/;print}shift" "Jjhi pcdiwtg Ptga wprztg,"
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
